Whoever designed this set probably sat too close to the television as a toddler.

Absolutely my least favorite set ever.

This is one of the hardest to read sets that I have, it is too busy and the numbers are hard to read-I don't know how many times I had the wrong number- 6 instead of 8. This is my least favorite set of all that I have.

So I have a card where the front is the front of the Paul Molitor/Bagwell insert: https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/495/cid/608559/1995-Fleer---All-Stars-13-Paul-Molitor-/-Jeff-Bagwell?PageIndex=1

And the back is the back of the Garrett Anderson Prospect insert (slightly shifted):
https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/499/cid/608598/1995-Fleer---Major-League-Prospects-1-Garret-Anderson?PageIndex=1

It is single card. Definitely not stuck together. Is this common in this set?

Thanks. And I totally agree with the above comments on this set.aesthetically.

This set made me stop collecting Fleer after 11 years.

I'm with David on this - name of player not apparent at first glance on either side of the card. Some card numbers do not contrast with background therefore difficult to read. Pictures are of the player only with no baseball background. They are supposed to be baseball cards; looks more like some fantasy game.

I love the concept of this set. I put together one set then quietly got rid of all the duplicates. Trying to read the numbers on the backs of the cards left me bug-eyed. Again, on the good side I like the complete line-up for each team.

In my mind, the ugliest set of all-time, and that's covering a lot of ground. There are so many flaws with this set- a different "design" for each division, every PhotoShop trick known to man, etc. that showing some of these cards to small children could induce permament nightmares.